4 ms·

I'm not sure you can make a good case that regulation opposed to the interests of AirBnB/Uber/etc. is a bad thing for the economy from the point of view of the

I'm not sure you can make a good case that regulation opposed to the interests of AirBnB/Uber/etc. is a bad thing for the economy from the point of view of the workers. From that angle, it's zero-sum: the more people who use AirBnB, the fewer stay in hotels; the more who use Uber/Lyft, the fewer take taxis. Rather, it's from the point of view of the customers that you can make this case: people have transportation and travel options they didn't have before. That effect doesn't necessarily show up in GDP, but it does mean that life is a little bit better on the whole.

mahyarm 10y ago
With increased supply come decreased price and increased usage. Uber and airbnb increase the supply of transportation and hotel places in total, decreasing the price for customers and increasing the total volume used.
- acjohnson55 10y ago
  Specifically, this is because demand for these things is elastic, in econ terms. A buddy of mine in the hotel industry says that this seems to be the case. They can't quantify the negative impact of AirBnB on their bottom line. But he's at a high end hotel, I'm sure different parts of the industry see different things.
morgante 10y ago
> I'm not sure you can make a good case that regulation opposed to the interests of AirBnB/Uber/etc. is a bad thing for the economy from the point of view of the workers. Sure you can. If I'm a part-time Uber driver, forcing me to be classified as an employee might very well remove a side income stream from me. It's even more farcical for AirBnB: people renting out their spare bedroom would not otherwise be working in hotels. > From that angle, it's zero-sum: the more people who use AirBnB, the fewer stay in hotels Actually, I'm not sure this is true. If AirBnB reduces the cost of temporary accommodation, you might very well see increased travel overall without hurting hotels. In fact, I strongly believe this is true: look at things like the digital nomad movement, which heavily uses AirBnB and would be much less common without modern technology. Right now I'm staying in an AirBnB—if this option weren't available, I wouldn't have stayed in a hotel.
- shostack 10y ago
  And if you're a full time driver and desperately need healthcare, etc. This prevents you from getting it through Uber. I don't think the matter is so black and white.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Unless the you're one of the 80% of drivers having another job not because you want one, but because being a driver doesn't pay enough. Part time work is allowed, why would reclassification take away the other income stream? Or if you're one of the many delivery drivers who are only self-employed because the organisation insists. It gives the organisation a means to evade employee regulations and pay despite a 40 hour week, but nothing to the worker.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    Because the cost to Uber of reclassifying these contractors as employees would end their business.
- fpoling 10y ago
  The observation about AirBNB that it increases possibilities for travelling without hurting hotels significantly is spot on. Personally I know students who would not go to some conferences without AirBNB. Staying in a hotel is just above their travel allowance. Less anecdotal is reports from hotel industry in Norway about record levels of occupancy despite growth in AirBNB and similar services.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  Yeah, neither Uber nor AirBnB area a zero sum game, esp. ABnB. There is some 'growing the pie' at the margins, but I'd suggest that Uber Corp. grabs more than what is created, and that drivers et. al. are holding the losing end of the stick. The power imbalance between Uber Corp. and drivers is quite massive. Esp. without employment status. Uber is designed to suck every last penny of real margin out of the system, and leave drivers with the absolute minimum. Worse: because many drivers make short term decisions about their costs, and don't calculate wear and tear into their decisions, it's probably that Uber driving is borderline unprofitable. Imagine if there was one factory in the world where you could work. You got $10 an hour - just enough to stay alive. But - you are going to get sick and die in 10 years from the toxicity. Well, the real 'market price' for such dangerous work might be $20/hour - enough to pay for health insurance and medicine, but because of short term decisions made by workers who are desperate - it's $10/hour i.e. a 'long term money losing venture' to work in the factory. I generally like Uber as a concept, but we can't ignore these issues.
closeparen 10y ago
You're assuming that people who take Uber would take taxis if Uber were not available. That's a big assumption. I (like most people, I'd imagine) evaluation my options for each trip: - Drive for myself. Fast, comfortable, fun, probably a trivial amount of gas, but I refuse to search for street parking and depending on destination I may not want to pay $30+ for a garage space. - Taxis, which will probably run $25-30 each way + tip, for around $70 spent on transportation for the evening. - Cycling, which is a no-go in Chicago winter, or when I'm going somewhere nice and don't want to arrive sweaty, or when I'm going home late and don't trust the safety of the bike path. - Public transit, which will be cheap but excruciatingly slow and a revolting experience on hard surfaces in a harsh florescent-lit car smelling urine, listening to ambient rap music from people's shitty phone speakers, and trying to find something to look at other than the people my seat is pointed at. - UberX, which is fast but a tad expensive for me at ~$15 for a taxi-like experience (except you can actually get one in my neighborhood). - UberPOOL, which is usually a "just right" balance of comfort (sit in a nice or at least modern car, look out the window, other passengers are rarely if ever an issue), speed (the routing algorithm does do ridiculous things, but rarely), and cost - usually around $7-$10. - Not go out because I don't want to put up with public transit or spend what it costs for private transit. Withdrawing Uber won't put me in a taxi, it'll put me in my own car, occasionally public transit, or more likely staying in and ordering delivery. Same with Airbnb. I take longer vacations, or vacations I wouldn't have in a hotel, because Airbnb is cheaper. I don't have extra money lying to pay hotel prices; if the cost of travel increases I will buy less travel.
- bernardlunn 10y ago
  If you live in a city with good public transport, like London, Uber is much less important.
- crazy1van 10y ago
  > Withdrawing Uber won't put me in a taxi, it'll put me in my own car, occasionally public transit, or more likely staying in and ordering delivery. This is my experience as well. My wife and I have traveled from our inner suburb into the city for dinner and drinks far more often than we ever did before Uber. Because of convenient and reasonably priced transportation, we've spent more money overall in the local dining economy.

mahyarm 10y ago

With increased supply come decreased price and increased usage. Uber and airbnb increase the supply of transportation and hotel places in total, decreasing the price for customers and increasing the total volume used.

acjohnson55 10y ago
Specifically, this is because demand for these things is elastic, in econ terms. A buddy of mine in the hotel industry says that this seems to be the case. They can't quantify the negative impact of AirBnB on their bottom line. But he's at a high end hotel, I'm sure different parts of the industry see different things.

morgante 10y ago

> I'm not sure you can make a good case that regulation opposed to the interests of AirBnB/Uber/etc. is a bad thing for the economy from the point of view of the workers. Sure you can. If I'm a part-time Uber driver, forcing me to be classified as an employee might very well remove a side income stream from me. It's even more farcical for AirBnB: people renting out their spare bedroom would not otherwise be working in hotels. > From that angle, it's zero-sum: the more people who use AirBnB, the fewer stay in hotels Actually, I'm not sure this is true. If AirBnB reduces the cost of temporary accommodation, you might very well see increased travel overall without hurting hotels. In fact, I strongly believe this is true: look at things like the digital nomad movement, which heavily uses AirBnB and would be much less common without modern technology. Right now I'm staying in an AirBnB—if this option weren't available, I wouldn't have stayed in a hotel.

shostack 10y ago
And if you're a full time driver and desperately need healthcare, etc. This prevents you from getting it through Uber. I don't think the matter is so black and white.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
Unless the you're one of the 80% of drivers having another job not because you want one, but because being a driver doesn't pay enough. Part time work is allowed, why would reclassification take away the other income stream? Or if you're one of the many delivery drivers who are only self-employed because the organisation insists. It gives the organisation a means to evade employee regulations and pay despite a 40 hour week, but nothing to the worker.
- pitaj 10y ago
  Because the cost to Uber of reclassifying these contractors as employees would end their business.
fpoling 10y ago
The observation about AirBNB that it increases possibilities for travelling without hurting hotels significantly is spot on. Personally I know students who would not go to some conferences without AirBNB. Staying in a hotel is just above their travel allowance. Less anecdotal is reports from hotel industry in Norway about record levels of occupancy despite growth in AirBNB and similar services.
jomamaxx 10y ago
Yeah, neither Uber nor AirBnB area a zero sum game, esp. ABnB. There is some 'growing the pie' at the margins, but I'd suggest that Uber Corp. grabs more than what is created, and that drivers et. al. are holding the losing end of the stick. The power imbalance between Uber Corp. and drivers is quite massive. Esp. without employment status. Uber is designed to suck every last penny of real margin out of the system, and leave drivers with the absolute minimum. Worse: because many drivers make short term decisions about their costs, and don't calculate wear and tear into their decisions, it's probably that Uber driving is borderline unprofitable. Imagine if there was one factory in the world where you could work. You got $10 an hour - just enough to stay alive. But - you are going to get sick and die in 10 years from the toxicity. Well, the real 'market price' for such dangerous work might be $20/hour - enough to pay for health insurance and medicine, but because of short term decisions made by workers who are desperate - it's $10/hour i.e. a 'long term money losing venture' to work in the factory. I generally like Uber as a concept, but we can't ignore these issues.

closeparen 10y ago

You're assuming that people who take Uber would take taxis if Uber were not available. That's a big assumption. I (like most people, I'd imagine) evaluation my options for each trip: - Drive for myself. Fast, comfortable, fun, probably a trivial amount of gas, but I refuse to search for street parking and depending on destination I may not want to pay $30+ for a garage space. - Taxis, which will probably run $25-30 each way + tip, for around $70 spent on transportation for the evening. - Cycling, which is a no-go in Chicago winter, or when I'm going somewhere nice and don't want to arrive sweaty, or when I'm going home late and don't trust the safety of the bike path. - Public transit, which will be cheap but excruciatingly slow and a revolting experience on hard surfaces in a harsh florescent-lit car smelling urine, listening to ambient rap music from people's shitty phone speakers, and trying to find something to look at other than the people my seat is pointed at. - UberX, which is fast but a tad expensive for me at ~$15 for a taxi-like experience (except you can actually get one in my neighborhood). - UberPOOL, which is usually a "just right" balance of comfort (sit in a nice or at least modern car, look out the window, other passengers are rarely if ever an issue), speed (the routing algorithm does do ridiculous things, but rarely), and cost - usually around $7-$10. - Not go out because I don't want to put up with public transit or spend what it costs for private transit. Withdrawing Uber won't put me in a taxi, it'll put me in my own car, occasionally public transit, or more likely staying in and ordering delivery. Same with Airbnb. I take longer vacations, or vacations I wouldn't have in a hotel, because Airbnb is cheaper. I don't have extra money lying to pay hotel prices; if the cost of travel increases I will buy less travel.

bernardlunn 10y ago
If you live in a city with good public transport, like London, Uber is much less important.
crazy1van 10y ago
> Withdrawing Uber won't put me in a taxi, it'll put me in my own car, occasionally public transit, or more likely staying in and ordering delivery. This is my experience as well. My wife and I have traveled from our inner suburb into the city for dinner and drinks far more often than we ever did before Uber. Because of convenient and reasonably priced transportation, we've spent more money overall in the local dining economy.